What I need is a woman that sees my exotic nature and what it feels like to hold on.

- Marco

May 25th 2014

 It doesn't suck being me what the real tragedy is - is you.

- Marco

May 25th 2018

 I am Canadian so I have the right to say this. I feel I am in a culture that is so unromantic in its entirety that my own personality is alienated as result. Culture should be guided by an element of romance and mystery to it. My intentions go to die in the mist of such emotion.

- Marco

May 25th 2022

 It leaves little to the imagination. As an adult I can see me for the person I've become. I am a fucking good person. I know it. I feel it in my heart. I always have.

What feeds my sensibility is that for all those times I felt indifferent wasn't despite myself. If people hate me they hate me for no reason choose to anyway. I have no control over it.

I look back and see now how human it's made me. It's funny how much I care about what other people think. Maybe that's my problem. Rewind what I just said... I care about what other people think. Not what they think they know about me. No. What I care about is being treated equally. It baffles me how many people can't translate the good life other than carrying an elitist brand of thought. Even if they are unaware of being so conditioned.

I always have been a free spirit. And the faith that I have invested in me I also have invested in others. I will never let go of that kind of wisdom. I openly share it.

- Marco

May 25th 2023

 That's a paradoxical statement (false dichotomy). Lincoln may have meant that discipline in his estimation is a shade of contradiction. That what we want actually cannot be realized due to an indirect conflict. Therefore, interestingly enough the cause if something 'we want most' is that of sovereignty for a certain group? Is that attainable if at all. However, if I applied the same calculation to want total independent sovereignty in terms of absolute freedom without responsibility (free from discipline) then asks; what is Lincoln left with.

- Marco

obtuse

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

I think that is the model for reality based thinking. That the present is always - always the naming of a word for something to describe something you love. The object of your affection. Beauty is in the perception of it.

Perception is what we pay attention to, closer to learning what makes the experience we have but in a closed system that what we know is reality in the present state of it. An open system (which we see reality in its natural state not disorder) can be measured. e.g. observing

So I guess you're right. Perception is in the present as reality. What we experience is a result of our postulation of it as theoretical.

In conclusion, awareness being in between what is experience and what is thinking.

experience (present) -------> awareness <------- thinking (reality) = thought displacement (to instruct, to observe)

Reality is what gives us instant perception. How we measure it through experience and observation is a truth-experiment in what's represented as a psychological mapping for something objective.

What is perception is acting as practical or asks questions as in learning what perception acts on. To perceive every action as if socially scientific for same purpose our reality is thought of, comes in the form of a experience from which we turn over. The interval between perception and what the intellect sees on is the structure. i.e. theoretical

I think that is the model for reality based thinking. That the present is always - always the naming of a word for something to describe something you love. The object of your affection. Beauty is in the perception of it.

Perception is what we pay attention to, closer to learning what makes the experience we have but in a closed system that what we know is reality in the present state of it. An open system (which we see reality in its natural state not disorder) can be measured. e.g. observing

So I guess you're right. Perception is in the present as reality. What we experience is a result of our postulation of it as theoretical.

In conclusion, awareness being in between what is experience and what is thinking.

experience (present) -------> awareness <------- thinking (reality) = thought displacement (to instruct, to observe)

Reality is what gives us instant perception. How we measure it through experience and observation is a truth-experiment in what's represented as a psychological mapping for something objective.

the bullshit factor

 Not that hate you feel for something is wrong.  Hate is fake.  What you feel hate for, is something that is fake itself. And if you register it - what fake is - is fake happens as something that hate becomes less pronounced. The more fake it feels, the higher the level of defense mechanism overcompensating for inferiority.  

- Marco  

The intention of a liar

The greater the intent the more likely you detect how imformation if manipulated will feel.

- Marco

The many odds

 I'm a first class loser only because I know what to think. ( As the things that are cause me to think.) Let me be clearer. The fact I have to fake acting stupid. I am trained. Trained to the point it makes my skill seem esthetic even to an untrained eye. I prefer to be a genius because what is priceless goes beyond what things may come, as a result of what I take action in doing.

What I create, I do because all people are - are stranded in such a stupor thar they cop out on moral standards. It doesn't end there.  

Material ethics is matter of spontaneity gone unspoken. We are afraid. Afriaid to be made of, in other words, to be made fascinating. We confuse what standards - are - for it.  

- Marco

May 24th 2012

 

May 24th 2013

 People causing the deafness of others is a very real phenomenon, it describes their limited sense of judgment over awareness.

- Marco

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

How is it: that a person bases their disposition will somehow enable itself into something meaningful without even questioning it.

- Marco

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

The only debilitation any person can ever experience is their inability to attend the same vessel you occupy.

- Marco

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

People that pay lip service to displace the meaning you have given, are completely vacant of their own ideas.

- Marco

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

The culture in Canadian society seriously lacks something, there is an unseen level of darkness pervades that needs to be addressed.

- Marco

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

The most corrupt idea I can think of is in how to make others falsely believe that they are guilty of their own actions.

- Marco

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

Only a cop out resorts to making others guilty, life imitates our understanding of how much we suffer at the hands of others.

- Marco

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

Suffering is the cornerstone of human existence. If you fail to see that, then you have mistaken your ability to trade it for anything.

- Marco

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

I am the source that will enable my own weakness, suffering is a cause which divorced it from reality - this should in itself empower me.

- Marco

May 24th 2014 (Fear of false judgment)

 I am not a bad guy I just refuse to fake my happiness for people I hate or that hate me and be falsely accused of trying to intimidate over confident assholes. This is my idea of eccentricity, actualized.

- Marco

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

Someone tell me why I should apologize or feel guilty for my persona or ideas - you get the evil eye.

- Marco

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

I am arriving at a place where what I see if it does not reach me in some capacity of greater self worth I deliberately press cancel.

- Marco

 Istvan Nagy

Unverified and unsubstantiated legend has it, Paul “invented” the cult of Christianity …a man who never knew Christ and was a staunch opponent of Jesus’s followers. The entire doctrine is a huge lie: an incoherent, confused mess. The central contradiction at the heart of Christianity’s historical development is that Paul the Apostle (a man who almost certainly never met Jesus Christ during his lifetime, was not among his disciples, and originally persecuted his followers) became the dominant architect of the religion that would later bear Jesus’s name. While Jesus appears in the Gospels primarily as a Jewish apocalyptic teacher focused on ethics, repentance, and the coming Kingdom of God, Paul transformed the movement into a universal theology of salvation centered on sin, faith, resurrection, and mystical union with Christ. Paul’s authority rested not on firsthand experience with the historical Jesus, but on a private visionary revelation that could not be independently verified. Yet his interpretations ultimately overshadowed those of Jesus’s own companions. This creates a profound historical and philosophical tension: Christianity’s global theological framework was shaped less by the direct teachings of Jesus than by the metaphysical interpretations of a later convert claiming divine insight…

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

(My rebuttal)

Honestly, you are gaslighting. It's a theory you have that has no real substantiation to it. I am Roman Catholic. Jesus on the cross rejects everything your argument's main objective. Which is to debunk what being sacrificed (dying on the cross) symbolizes. I have no idea why. What's your master thesis here trying to prove. There is why I think - pointless. You cannot make these half baked claims and dismiss 2000 years of the Eucharist. The conclusion to your argument holds no water. That a 'theological framework' was meant to entrap civilization. Only because Paul was lying through his use of metaphysical anomalies. Tell me. That makes sense? Not to my source as faith in the cross. i.e. Jesus himself

I am willing to bet you find this argument of mine as irrelevant. Therefore, at worst we are equals. At best, your argument stands alone on some better rejection of Christianity. I suppose.

To say Paul is not an important figure in the liturgy of faith is a misnomer. I think your argument is saying there has been made, some master plot that is irrefutable to Christianity is simply unorthodox as itself. Maybe my signals are getting crossed with yours. . . but I understand why you say it.

If I have graded your argument correctly or incorrectly? If I put myself in the shoes of an academic, your argument is philosophically accurate. But is fallacious = in everything I think as not rooted sound in truth.

You get a grade that you like, I just don't find the argument accurately postulated for these reasons.

- Marco

May 24th 2026

 "The self, the ‘me’ and the ‘mine’, is very strong in most of us; sleeping or waking, it is ever alert, always strengthening itself. But when there is an awareness of the self and a realization that all its activities, however subtle, must inevitably lead to conflict and pain, then the craving for certainty, for self-continuance comes to an end."

—Krishnamurti

Education and significance of Life, Chapter 3

To purge concentration :: the as the unnatural, the perversion as perturbation (in thought)

 

the commitment to atrophy

 

Only when the mind ceases to create is there creation.

J. Krishnamurti

Not to (make a fist)

May 23rd 2013

Self centered narrow minded people are exhibitionist. They pass off being habitually racist as naively hypocritical of others.

- Marco

Hemmingway 

I take the time to think about what gets on my level. Hemmingway is caustic here. As result is feeding us lies of an imaginatively inferiority complex we unconsciously adorn oursleves to.

- Marco

Marco's paradox

 For no greater loss if not done on purpose, to my lesser-known fear as a higher sense of awareness.

- Marco ©️ 🍁 

Mine is life

 So what is the idea of time travel. If you have to guess, the speed of light would have to apply in order to fulfill that requirement. Science works backwards. Science tells us only what we can reveal about ourselves. But not at the quantum level. My understanding of quantum theory tells me what I need to know is for lack of permeance. I want to fight for it. This world is all we have. 

If machine life were able to contrast itself into an anomaly, do you want to upload your personal genetic code (DNA) into a machine. Do you exist formlessly?

If we can prove that heaven exists in an isometric scale, that eternity is therefore limited to simulation of your machine life made up your DNA in the realm of quantum computing. Where the future involves is not as a species, but a model that is machine generated.

These questions between if you choose to be automated and therefore invincible i.e. consciously aware for infinity. Do you forgo your human body as your vessel? Is time a machine constructed capsule.

It's going to be the reality within the next 1000yrs. But my question isn't predictable as the answer.

Do you want what is your real life version of you, or do you want a consciously permanent neverending construct visble to everything in the universe. Where norhing is invisible to you but you and your understanding. You conduct yourself as a machine.

Only you don’t want it.

(That's the paradox.)

There is a finite construct incoming. The universe will be invariably distinct from this one if we do nothing to resist.

Science fact needs peace attached to the unqualifying idea of science fiction itself.

I want to write my own story. Practice owning my space in time. The concept of free will is what makes the architect. Machine life will not accept that.  

My point is a practical one.

Which choice do you ("we") make as a species moving forward. The one where god has his only son or playing god for the purpose of a conscious machine life.

- Marco

°•●•°○○

Time is not a constant. Einstein figured this out in 1905 and it has been confirmed repeatedly since. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. This is not casual theory. It is measured, verified physics that GPS satellites correct for every single day or your maps would drift by kilometres.

Now scale that up to something genuinely mind-bending.

The Andromeda Galaxy sits 2.537 million light years from Earth. A round trip at 99.9 percent the speed of light would take approximately 5 million years from Earth's perspective. Civilisations would rise and fall. The continents would shift. Most species alive today would be extinct or unrecognisable.

For the traveller, the story is completely different. At 99.9 percent the speed of light, time dilation compresses the experienced journey to roughly 224 years of personal time. Push that to 99.9999 percent and the same trip shrinks to about two years. You board a ship, travel to another galaxy and back, age a handful of years, and return to an Earth where 5 million years passed without you.

Nothing about that violates any law of physics. Einstein's special relativity says that space and time are a single fabric, and motion through space trades off against motion through time. The mathematics are exact and confirmed by atomic clocks on aircraft.

The barrier is not the physics. It is the engineering. Accelerating any object with mass to even a fraction of light speed requires energy that dwarfs everything humanity has ever produced.

But here is the part worth sitting with. Time dilation is happening to you right now, relative to someone sitting perfectly still. They are ageing fractionally faster than you are.

Not by much. But the universe is genuinely that strange.

May 21st 2009

Of all the virtue's; fear should not be motivated by greed. 

- Marco

May 21st 2013

 I use as an example how fear mixed with self doubt for not fitting the stereotype of exhibitionism is impressionable rather than vulnerable.

May 21st 2015

 If altruism is not present (given freely) and does not exist in a world made up of virtuosity, the pursuit of happiness can only be flawed.

- Marco

●°○°○°○°☆°

Altruism can only exist in a world where the pursuit of happiness is characterized by the freedom that a culture represents.

●°●°○°▪︎°▪︎°

If the basis of happiness depends on a component of altruism (where everyone is "free") how can it be based on a system where anybody loses.

°●•▪︎°°°▪︎•▪︎°

Subjectivity in pursuing happiness strictly by default is flawed, the same quality of life cannot be attained toward each and every person.

°●°●○°○°○•○

If you only base the pursuit of happiness on how successful everyone is independent of each other, it is impossible for everyone to attain.

°●°▪︎°●°▪︎•▪︎

If you are a selfish person by nature, isn't the pursuit of happiness flawed strictly based on the perception of getting what you "deserve".

°●•●•○○°▪︎•▪︎

The subjectivity involved in the pursuit of happiness only accounts for those "deserving" of it, how altruistic can a person be?

°○°○○°☆°▪︎

I am beginning to believe that the catch meant in the "pursuit of happiness" is only based on who is deserving. How can everyone not be?

°○•○°°

- Marco

May 21st 2015

 Bullshitters anonymous.

None of that is quantifiable.

What level.

What don't I have.

Who am I trying to impress.

It's all relative.

I can only trust that others want to make me feel bad about myself based on their own morality hitherto lack of it or just a high level of inferiority.

What I resent people do is another matter entirely.

- Marco ©️ 🍁 

May 21st 2018

 I am real good with qualifying theoretical propositions. That is itself the birth of a philosopher. Time can only continue backwards with the illusion we move forward.

- Marco ©️ 🍁 

Moon children

 This is wisdom as its highest form.

IF you read it and can not process what it means, you may not be alone. (But if you do.) Tell me.

Therein lay the plot.

- Marco

So it is imperative that you find out for yourself why you make effort. I can explain; but explanations, words, are not the facts just as the word "tree" is not the tree. The explanation is not the fact of your own discovery. When you discover it for yourself, then it becomes tremendously vital; then it has significance; then it gives you vitality to meet that fact. Look! If I tell you to look at that moon, you will look; but you have not looked at all, because you have been told to look. But if you are listening to the speaker as well as looking at that moon, then you will see how extraordinarily united the attention is, which looks at the moon and listens to the words of the speaker - they are not two different things, two different activities. It is the same energy that looks, and it is the same energy that listens. But when you divide it as an act of listening and as an act of looking, then you have created a contradiction. Then, in that contradiction, there is effort. Then, you exclude the moon and listen to the speaker. When you exclude the moon and listen to the speaker, you are not listening to the speaker.

J. Krishnamurti
Public Talk 2 Bombay (Mumbai), India - 14 February 1965

Fish "out" of water

 I think Foucault's use of a practical example to term how exhibitionist behavior, for example, is seen as a norm. Only we are unaware of how to instruct ourselves in countering the same thing that escapes an understanding of it. This kind of revelation. A revelation that increases our place in life rather than just apathetic recognizance. The fish analogy is brilliant in itself, but only Foucault would seemingly make that sound original. 

- Marco ©️🍁

The (good) Sheppard

It was a will of the mind,

spoke a voice inside.

For the very little I know,

there is no sign.

So, I look for things that aren't-

aren't there.

No sheppard to see.

In this vast wilderness of thought,

a mind wanders.

A search only looking for -

found a case of treasure,

only once its been open...

imagine what's inside.

On the inside,

(there may be nothing.)

An empty treasure,

setting the universe in motion.

Before you opened it,

what you thought was inside.

Was not.

But it was a sign,

if things you never thought possible,

suddenly became true.

What would you think.

What could you do.

If not,

- not looking.

°●°○°○○°°○

- Marco ©️ 

no turbulence = zero dreams

We are all heroes.

All, wanting to be.

What is secretly true.

(Of my self respecting nature.)

- Marco

The no story (May 19th 2010)

 The story of no.

It began long into a verse, which carried a kind of resonate tone, where thoughts did not quite emerge nor trap themselves. They just were whatever they were - at any given time - or moment.

Such plain simplicity in its view, might that word or other reveal lay to rest in a silence devoid of - silence itself.

Where the story of no reaches, there is no end, only that which it embraces unconditional to failure, then to failure comes, came agreement, then nothing more. Just words of plain poetic verse. Of pioneering the story of no.

So out it came, the big secret which so much thought was put into that little - very miniscule - sense of something much too small. It needed something bigger, something far bigger than the imagination.

This provided the sense of comfort, of thanks, of freedom so discreet.

How gentle a verse, to carry on in such secrecy, that what appeared to be something entirely posing life-like qualities, everything else surrounding it was empty. Around that empty space, then a place where pain is no longer chosen. In terms of memory, you've discovered shame is the same as pain chosen, self inflicted or absorbed as benign energy, followed a malignant form which hostility, creates.

This hostility is of passion.

Passion does not fly directly over your head if it does, it just enjoys taking light subconscious naps.

- Marco

Field's Day (May 19th 2010)

 I used to love that anticipation. The kind I had when growing up. A show of hands between ancient wisdom mixed with romantic love. There is no despair in it.

There is one conserving reason, on it's benefactor, which no lack of lineage through conversation can avow.

Guilt not only breaks all barriers; it - to me - conforms. So to unblock the ravine from it's flow, so to this unleash your peace of mind.

- Marco

==========

Volatile addition made at ending.

Vague profile of a triangle (May 19th 2010)

 May 19th 2023

This. This right here is a language ahead of its time. I am not saying that because it's untrue of me but because I know in my heart no matter the scrutiny I have faced as result of my social media outlook... critics of myself be damned!! I fucking prove myself through the words I've not just come up with to melody. I earned my venture. Being an outcast has proven me right along. I, the critic.

It was over fucking 13 years ago I wrote this. How was I to know.

The young women in am talking about were real girlfriends of mine.

I am so glad I met them. They both proved to be wrong for me. In gods eyes he protected me from them both. It was a block. Not just a mental block preventing me from a marriage I never wanted. I never acted!! It's a blessing.

This all means one thing and one thing only. Things that aren't meant to be are meant to be.

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

When directed at shapes, I forget that those things are no more real than just simple geometric illusions. That is to say something about, a type of image that configures an exact reading. Easily, to be fooled into thinking it is better than the real thing (which may not quite exist as a particular recourse due to action.) In fact, the opposite has happened, inaction became the lifeblood, desperate to make itself heard somehow.

Perhaps this is why memory, plays an inopportune place in why the mind works this way.

I am reminded of a sequence of dreams I've been having lately, which all involve a girlfriend past, unlike any other I've had since she arrived, my dreams slowly draw me closer to her, at this odd moment in climax to the plot. . . a plot unheard of by my own virtue. I know she is there, I know who she is, I've kept referring back to her in my thoughts, the strange thing is, there is no obsession. Absolutely no obsession explains why the dream-life has taken shape, or instructed its form, it's created through memory, of things I cannot nor have I control over. Therefore, the mental faculty of dreaming even in wakefulness, is a given right, I am actually beginning to live my dreamlife the way I want to. Which to some may seem odd, not so much to others for unknown reasons (unspecific) to the Nietzsche archetype of dreamlife.

My mind has examined these things, congruently to a measure of self to self-satisfaction. My dreams involved two different people, of whom I've encountered very briefly in my dreams, and I've told them to get out.

Not only have I applied my sense of authority, I can actually live the thoughts I has (whilst in process of REM sleep mode), I truly recall as I can right now, the thought I had when approached by these two people. They become shocked, frightened at the sight of me, as if they've been exposed of something not unusual to my earthly habits, as if they've read my mind in a way that I know they can understand what I'm doing in real time, has unduly made them aware that they've served a prohibition on my part. . . to get out of my real time life.

They are now aware they've acted as threat toward my better judgment, not worthy of the same judgment I bestow upon myself, which is a matter immaterial of the heart. It is an unconditional kind of love, which they've dismissed, as if they're merely children playing the role of devils advocate, they realize I am no longer the person they tried to engage without bribery.

Everything as it happened, happened verbatim to this description of those powerful semi-divided events which took place, simply able to relive that event unfolding in the dreamlife. In my real world reality, it is a measure of the thoughts I placed, took place in the dream, were there to illustrate something I probably already knew about them, though my thought processes arrived at a definitive conclusion.

Having been able to interpret this dream, eventually leads me to a former (as mentioned earlier) girlfriend, who I cared very deeply for to this day.

It reminds me, that the dreamlife can signal varied effects on the psyche, as if to resemble what another person may telepath about myself, through their own experience in memory about me.

This time in my life, as I observe this coming of age - so to speak - is as if I've carried an allowance or spiritual nature which has been demonic against myself for no better reason than my own.

She inspires me on this level, that I can freely advocate, professing the kind of love that true love can only be. I still love her very deeply. And I thank her. I thank her for her guidance.

It's as if the psychic part of my emotional well being, was meant to be lifted through this guidance, of a non-specific part of my life. Though, not having met her would have never made me aware of it myself. I can see the effect she had on me, was an ill-advised reproach on my part. My fragility, my vulnerability, my sense of wanting to be with her. . . escaped me completely. The reasons may be factually simple enough to presume, being scared, or just naive, foolish, or just lost in puppy love, those are all false ideals which carry no real meaning.

It's what she gave me - what I missed. It's time to change all of that.

- Marco

wisdom I promise

 To protect, is not only to forgive, but forget about the causes however uncertain, that you are indeed green in envy. - Marco©️

Now finishing the night cure for analysis, I must proceed to the nearest Subway counter, and dive into the vegetable section (on a sub of course.)

my kind of sense for humor

 To be honest the Egyptians of ancient time really sucked at one thing and one thing only: they took all their free time building pyramids. Then came the free masons...lol. -Marco

Why Elon Musk is a brat

 I admit, I judge twitter users with a prejudice, only if they stereotype themselves into the undesirable "I wanna get star fucked" role. - Marco

The flow of concentration

 Living without making decisions | Krishnamurti

The art of observation | Krishnamurti

May 19th 2013

If what you speak is not as real as your intentions - than yeah - no soup for you. - Marco©️🍁

Win. > When my absence doesn't alter your life then my presence has no meaning in it.

The one privilege anyone that uses twitter is to offer creativity they otherwise take advantage of, but not feel vulnerable as in real life.

May 19th 2010

 There is something I fear not most of the time, when dealing with the after effects, before they've incurred any kind of reconciliation without good faith, or with the after effects of some superficial knowledge, that hope, of a truth I can embrace.

- Marco

Proverbs 11:25

 ❤️ this...

A generous person will prosper; whoever refreshes others will be refreshed.

Proverbs 11:25

Mark 10:45

 Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

— Mark 10:45

Philosophical discourse in real time

 Epistemological argument?

Jim Overbeck, an independent researcher and philosophical writer, offers a biting, heterodox critique of Hegel, characterizing his dialectic as a convoluted masquerade rather than a pursuit of truth.The critique of Hegel’s philosophy unfolds through several core arguments: Charlatanism and Contortion: Overbeck fundamentally attacks Hegel’s dialectic method—specifically the concept of "divine undifferentiation" and the negation of opposites—arguing it is little more than a semantic sleight of hand designed to contort theocentricity. The Usurpation of God: He argues that Hegel’s system seeks to replace the "unoriginated" (the divine, uncreated origin of the universe) with a self-originating human subject. Overbeck views this act of intellectual self-creation as a gross parody of divine creation. Rejection of Totality: For Overbeck, earthly logic and finite systems are fundamentally flawed and inherently incomplete. He rejects Hegel's "absolute knowledge" and systematic totality, arguing that any system that attempts to cage the infinite within human logic is deeply flawed. Overbeck’s broader philosophical project asserts that human beings can only achieve true wholeness and identity through the "divine energies" of Christ in deification, rather than through Hegel’s rational, historical self-realization of the Spirit.

°●°○○°○°○°

My rebuttal:

["divisive undifferentiation" does not reveal truth; instead, it uses convoluted vocabulary to mask a fundamental logical failure.] = 

That is a misrepresentation for what is Hegel's aims are.  Therefore, I hardly see the flux of that sentence you assert yourself without an objective argument in mind. You made a statement that holds no water, lacks validity, and a presupposition at the very least.  Worse off fallaciously misinformed.  I have studied Hegel, and his proofs are not to be negated.

°●°○°○○°○°

A deeper look into Jim Overbeck’s critique reveals a highly specific, linguistically intense assault on Hegelian dialectics. His core arguments dismantle what he perceives as Hegel's intellectual illusions, focusing on the mechanics of logic, theology, and the ultimate origins of reality.1. The Contortion of "Indifferent Diversity "Overbeck focuses heavily on a foundational mechanic in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: the process where a simple concept splits into opposites and reconciles. The Hegelian Formula: Hegel describes this as "the bifurcation of the simple," where a unified concept doubles itself to create opposition, followed by the "negation of this indifferent diversity". This negation is supposed to produce a higher, differentiated identity.The Overbeck Takedown: Overbeck labels this entire sequence a semantic masquerade. He argues that this "divisive undifferentiation" does not reveal truth; instead, it uses convoluted vocabulary to mask a fundamental logical failure. For Overbeck, earthly logic lacks the true principle of identity (\(A=A\)), and Hegel's attempt to generate truth by multiplying contradictions is merely a "juggler's trick".2. The Kantian Root and "Parody of Creation"Overbeck does not view Hegel in a vacuum. He tracks the root of Hegel's errors back to Immanuel Kant.The Critique of Self-Origination: Kant initiated a shift by positioning the human subject as the originator of its own experience. Overbeck argues that the human "act of consciousness" in German Idealism acts as a gross parody of divine creation.Bypassing the "Unoriginated" (Agēnetos): Where God commands creation out of nothing, Kant and Hegel replace divine action with human logic. Overbeck claims that Hegel’s "Absolute Knowing" deliberately bypasses the true, unoriginated (ἀγένητος) divine Other, substituting it with a "strange self" that manufactures its own reality.3. Absolute Knowing vs. The InfinitiserOverbeck classifies Hegel as one of history's ultimate "infinitisers"—thinkers who try to systematize the infinite.The Problem of Totality: In essays like those shared across the Theosis Community, Overbeck highlights infinity as a concept that naturally dominates human abstraction.The Cage of Human Logic: Hegel tries to sweep all history, religion, and thought into a single, closed, logical system. Overbeck argues that caging the infinite within human systems strips reality of its true nature, turning a living universe into a "living death" of rigid definitions.4. Overbeck’s Alternative: Non-Cantorian Logic and DeificationTo completely overthrow what he calls the "fallen logic" of Hegel, Overbeck bypassed standard philosophy to build a Non-Cantorian set theory.Mathematics Over Logic: Overbeck asserts that mathematical infinities exist prior to human logic. Rather than resolving paradoxes through a Hegelian historical dialectic, Overbeck embraces mathematical contradictions (like the Fourier-Bolzano series) to reflect the mystical paradoxes of faith.True Identity Through Theosis: While Hegel claims humanity achieves self-realization through the historical progress of the Spirit, Overbeck argues that human identity is shattered and fragmented. True wholeness cannot be thought into existence via a philosophy degree; it can only be restored through the divine energies of Christ in the process of deification (theosis).

°●°●○°○○°

My rebuttal:

Jimi Overbeck [Kant and Hegel replace divine action with human logic. Overbeck claims that Hegel’s "Absolute Knowing" deliberately bypasses the true, unoriginated (ἀγένητος) divine] = misnomer. Why do you state this? It is an inversion for what the origin of our thoughts surmise. Looking into your statement, I think to myself, how - how does Hegel replace divine action with human logic. In my mind that is the space between reason itself.

°○●○•○•

It is an inversion for what the origin of our thoughts surmise!?? WTF does that mean in Satan's anus!? Obscure stupidity isn't the answer. Learn English, German and Greek.

°○°○°○°○○°

My rebuttals 1 vs 2:

1- Jimi Overbeck ok.  You ignore everything else I postulated to accuse me of a misuse of language.  You are the fraud here, man.  If you can misunderstand my poetry, it further illustrates how your accusation misses its target.

Admins: his over reaction counts as philosophy?? Check mate.

°○°○°○°○○°

2- Jimi Overbeck [inversion for what the origin of our thoughts surmise] = deserves its weight in gold.  It is a poetic inference into the unknown.  It is stating your position is philosophically dishonest.  You've made assertions and defended none of what you say about Hegel.  Therefore, "an inversion" made to dismiss how anything original may counter your thoughts.

To the admins: he came after me with ad hominems.  Let me atcleast defend myself. This is all I will do further to this thread.  I am a 1st class philosopher.  I know my stuff.

°°○●○•°

Marco Almeida Argumentum ad hominem is illegitimate & invented by the Sophists to bamboozle imbeciles. The argument is always its proponent.

°○°○○°○°○°

My rebuttals:

Jimi Overbeck you are an overreaching coward that has no idea what is philosophy in offering poor sensory perception.  I am an independent force of nature that doesn't require your validation.  I also happen to consider myself an avant-garde.  To that end, your credibility is a space out of my orbit, or the same ineffective intellectual deviance.

- Marco from Winnipeg

Jimi Overbeck so your proof here is to debunk my own poetry with someone else's is rather dimwitted of you. No.