Tuesday, June 09, 2026
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
🔮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?
Monday, June 08, 2026
ambiguity as silence
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
Romance in the years of life
This. I made this rule. I will die alone not breaking this rule. And I don't perform my confidence to sell myself out to my principles. (That last sentence means I do not navigate the world, I simply live my truth and lead by example.)
cashing out on Oscar Wilde
"The image stained upon the canvas possesses no spiritual element of growth or change. If they know nothing of death it is because they know little of life, for the secrets of life and death belong to those, and to those only, whom the sequence of time affects, and who possess not merely the present but the future, and can rise or fall from a past of glory or of shame. Movement, that problem of the visible arts, can be truly realised by literature alone. It is literature that shows us the body in its swiftness and the soul in its unrest."
-- Gilbert from "The Artist as Critic" by Oscar Wilde
internal war: rules of respite & the act of confession in meditation
I don't require punishment. God requires me in the face of his punishment. I am a sinner. I will always be. Understand that and declare war on yourself is what the beginning of wisdom creates. I don't feel punishment I fear only if god is for me.
- Marco
all acceptable mistakes only in punishment or reward
“Truth, which is permanent, eludes the historian of events. Truth transcends history.” Mahatma Gandhi
“Faith is like love: it does not let itself be forced.” Arthur Schopenhauer
Dreams that never come cheaply
I don't believe what Krishnamurti is trying to get across here. I understand it. But I don't necessarily agree with it. I think it is a fallacy to assess how the church has indoctrinated us as a whole of humanity. Unless you see what is it Krishnamurti is saying. To break the glass ceiling. The church does not influence me to act idealistically. Neither before nor after illusions.
Native Prairie Sun
50 Reasons You’ve Got Winnipeg All Wrong
June 7th 2026 Winnipeg's native prairie son, here. I can sit here and use anything superficial to convince you of what Winnipeg has to offer. (But I won't.) Being from here, we are not elitist in any way shape or form. If that doesn't appeal to you for the same reason the stereotype we get is in writing us off. [You have no idea what that false contradiction even implies.] It means we won't cater to the view that 'me only" mentality applies. It does not fly here. We are fiercely independent and care about each other as the result. Whether that be to a well being we share together this land, it's here - it's Winnipeg - where Canada has its roots. We are not some hornets nest that we compare to other major cities, where core level systemic racism is preferred. This follows how-there are difference's which in this day and age MAGA brain rot has spread into the Western culture, but Winnipeg prides itself around being indifferent to the cause which lessen partisan values. We are attune to socialist ideology in our modern political climate and have this approach to keep this Canada's melting pot as a model mosaic. We are equals in this city where it's not meant to seem that way to critics of Winnipeg. In case you are not from here - We hold that defect to power, in this very intelligent destination city not named Vancouver, or Toronto where Winnipeg's values and secular self image is painted over. My point is you feel like you belong, because Winnipeg is a prairie town which we love to create, speak about what it means to be from here non denominationally and where its endless skies forges you a romantic identity. We are Winnipeg. - Marco
Sunday, June 07, 2026
the standard for empiricism as ethically sound
Toothless are aims coming in the form of a lack in courage itself. This lack of courage (dispossessed) is representative as sardonic in psychology. The style - thoughtless. The purpose - inattentive to detail. The awareness - illiterate. It is a principle in that the mission has been named, having reached an implausible end. It is on an empirical level we think of this as one's clarity gone amok. Primaeval instincts - that mirrors a self centered approach toward anything cogent perceptively. Your identity is hidden from view (no concern) for cheating others. This mask being worn as one that is torn or two-faced in reflex. Mainly elitist Western values.
- Marco
Fingerprints for gods DNA
No one's personal doormat. Got myself out of being into that habit. That's it - for today's revelation. When I share things of this nature, it is a matter of setting a footprint. That as I move forward in life, I can look back at signs that put me here. And when I look back it's more symbiotic reductionism between extremes. I'm no victim. Fuck that. I pay attention to noise that remains relevant to the psychological processing that is (my) mind. . . that takes skill. If you fail to learn from what that means, that's on you.
I'm a revolutionary in the product of what I do on a daily basis from here on out. It's been like this for a while now. A man of ideas. I know who my friends are, and I pray for them. Always,
- Marco
What the most (a) sacred right to (b) my own will (c) is then made of [August 26th 2012]
The most important characteristics about me are:
1- I am no mental whore to freedom. (corrupted model)
2 - I am no uneffeminate slave to reason. (passive aggressive)
3 - I know how to delegate unstable authority. (systematic)
My extended beliefs make up a greater circumference of ideals (i.e. detailing), to dream - dream my own reasons, so too become my unconscious civility, my unconscious civility then takes on a personal level of nature (a) am I living a lie (b) can I make wishful thoughts (c) an altered state in reality to create energy of a cerebral nature. Can my value in all things be invested into one thing, a secret value, a secretive nature.
My own sense of self (belief) pervades my self gratification of a superficial value. Therefore it is in all things superficiality is the most obvious form of misconduct.
Can I not fall out of favor with the universe. That seems as if an aggressive formality against myself inhibition, as opposed to the outside forces I trust are at work in my favor.
I am made not to understand things that operate in the same way the universe does, nor am I in a universe as everyone else imitates. This is the most conventional ideal of wisdom I can think of.
We are made 'not' to understand why things are the way they are, or why they happen as they do, this is my true belief of life.
Therefore, I am 'not' made.
I am passionate.
However, I am not made to do anything in particular. What I am simply is 'that'. This is in my definition of the universe, my ultimate wisdom at a distance, I ask myself (a) what (b) is (c) that. The 'what' is what I forfeit myself to. The 'how' is to ensure you are not trapped in a universe made out of a confessional where you sit somewhere and contemplate your sins of my own emotional state or my satire in all of this.
In its effect: life is not a pursual to excellence.
The universe is not that powerful. I want to think this is a concept of the weakest version I myself would be able to survive it. This flies in the face of Darwin's survival of the fittest theory.
- Marco
=============
==============
This entry in it's entirety was truthfully trying to explain, how does one determine to answer, if there is one thing in the universe that is 'sacred', what would it be, how could it look like, what makes it permanent. Therefore, what then is my sacred right as an individual, myself taught, sacred to freedom.
I believe the truth in that answer, begins and ends in asking the question itself, what acts as sacred, the scared act to feel the truth. Is it even a possibility, in the way you ask a question has the nature of such a duality. What is sacred then what is reason. What 'is' sacred to reason.
That is the question one LEARNS to ask. You do not live as sacred, there is no nature in divinity, only divinity in nature can produce the divine will. This is what provides me, with the revealing of substantiation.
That what is sacred is a substantiation of my own will. That how you answer the question of what is sacred, can only then act as my divine will to answer it. It is the super self unconscious self. Can you live with yourself, in such a self described role, without the power to judge but of empowering the unconscious psyche that is my own minds eye - the eye of god, my eyes to gods will tells me.
Can I testify myself to the will of god, then god would recognize me. How would I possibly know. This is the basis, of asking what is sacred. How do you possibly begin to ask yourself that question, let alone discern its answer.
===============
^The very nature of the divine will in action.
=============
"I am made, not to, understand things that operate in the same way the universe does, nor am I in a universe as everyone else imitates. This is the most conventional ideal of wisdom I can think of. " (MA2012)
If there was ever a way to inform the masses against its own unfavorable gestation, in the form of ignorance set free, this would be it.^
We live as a means to be sedated of free will, then free thought would radically be different to a cause.
===============
In every instance I inform myself, I believe in my truth to reason consequential to each moment a thought is born.
===============
"The universe is not that powerful. I want to think this is a concept of the weakest version I myself would be able to survive it. This flies in the face of Darwin's survival of the fittest theory."
June 18, 2014
MA
If the universe acts as the single most viable creation known to man, the conceptualization we have of ourselves in it is our greatest misconception. We take for granted in each instance the universe if it were a creation man has deemed itself as the founder is a fatal flaw. Therefore even in evolutionary theory which aim is to disprove the theory of God's ad hoc existence means only the coefficient of evolution versus theology where man acts being the rational cause or choice of free will cannot be falsified.
===============
(Part I)
"However, I am not made to do anything in particular. What I am simply is 'that'. This is in my definition of the universe, my ultimate wisdom at a distance, I ask myself (a) what (b) is (c) that. The 'what' is what I forfeit myself to. The 'how' is to ensure you are not trapped in a universe made out of a confessional where you sit somewhere and contemplate your sins of my own emotional state of my satire in all of this."
August 26, 2012
MA
(Part II)
"That what is sacred is a substantiation of my own will. That how you answer the question of what is sacred, can only then act as my divine will to answer it. It is the super self unconscious self. Can you live with yourself, in such a self described role, without the power to judge but of empowering the unconscious psyche that is my own minds eye - the eye of god, my eyes to gods will tells me."
August 27, 2012
MA
============
^What this entry means to me is property of everything I have ever wanted to accomplish in my life. It means I aimed at the kind of ideas that might change our world views.
As far as I am concerned this is what I do now. I scribe and I revisit what I felt at the time.
I asunder what became these ideas which cannot be expelled.
============
This entry asks what is the universe and what does that question entail. I make an attempt at this stating there are certain values we can never fully be aware.
============
This part of the thesis has two equal parts: (Part I) is describing what is my idea of participating in the universe. (Part II) That if the universe is what I say it is can it also be attributed with the same idea of what is sacred. That in both instances it is not a love of god or the combination of truth:
"you are not trapped in a universe made out of a confessional where you sit somewhere and contemplate your sins of my own emotional state of my satire in all of this."
That if there were a god what does gods will tell you. The idea is that gods will is separate from yours nor does he dictate it. Therefore, what does gods will tell you if it were a lie.
"my eyes to gods will tells me."
June 21, 2014
MA
My birthday: written on August 27, 2012
On the subject of virtue and if your virtue is sacred or cosmic:
"That is the question one LEARNS to ask. You do not live as sacred, there is no nature in divinity, only divinity in nature can produce the divine will. This is what provides me, with the revealing of substantiation." - Marco Almeida 2012/2014
==================
2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath
not given us the
spirit of fear;
but of power,
and of love,
and of a
sound
mind.
2 Timothy 1:7
The subtle art of seduction by Marco Almeida
I am just going to say it. Actors in Winnipeg that think they know how to act - don't admit it. They won't admit they have no idea what it means or what that entails.
I've attended hundreds of classes pertaining to acting.
It has never once translated into having landed a profession in the field. All I ever wanted to be was an actor. In fact, I still am an avant-garde that cares about the art of seduction and treats the entire thing as an idea.
But when it comes to Canadian cinema or the skill it takes to truly make a difference - to this day I have never come across.
True in fact - in my experience.
=======
What else boils in my mind - is that the case I make is so rejected... the paradoxical nature I present gets more rejected than actually presenting ideas behind the subject itself.
You don't know skill until you quantify your methods.
The scene in Winnipeg I have witnessed are superficial at best. Same applies out in the universe of all.
Fuck the fake work-outs enduring countless hours of time and getting royally ripped off. My point here is simpler.
Get the fuck out of my way... I am an actor and I'm tired of being told I'm not.
Marco
hostage of the king [Phenomenology vs Ontological reasoning]
what is the difference between ontology and phenomenology in philosophy
Ontology is the philosophical study of being and reality—what exists and the nature of that existence. Phenomenology is the study of conscious experience and how things appear to us from a first-person perspective. Simply put, ontology focuses on what is out there, while phenomenology focuses on how we perceive and experience it.
The relationship between these two areas can be broken down into distinct branches: [1]
1. Ontology: The Study of Being
- Core Question: "What is the nature of existence, and what kinds of things fundamentally exist?"
- Focus: Investigates the structure of reality itself, independent of human perception. It categorizes things into concepts like time, space, objects, properties, and universals (e.g., What makes a chair a chair?).
- Goal: To map the fabric of reality and understand what it means for something "to be". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
2. Phenomenology: The Study of Experience
- Core Question: "What is it like to experience a phenomenon, and how do objects appear in our consciousness?" [1, 2]
- Focus: Investigates the "first-person" point of view. Instead of asking whether a tree physically exists in reality, a phenomenologist asks how the tree appears to you when you look at it, remember it, or interact with it. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Goal: To describe the structures of our conscious experiences, such as perception, memory, and emotion, exactly as they are lived, without filtering them through scientific or theoretical assumptions. [1, 2]
How They Differ and Connect
- Separation: Early phenomenologists (like Edmund Husserl) advocated for "bracketing" or setting aside traditional ontological questions about whether an external world objectively exists, choosing instead to focus purely on the structure of subjective experience. [1, 2]
- Connection: Later philosophers (like Martin Heidegger) argued that the two are deeply intertwined. For Heidegger, to understand the meaning of Being (ontology), we must first analyze the unique way humans exist and experience the world (phenomenology). [1, 2]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)