I'm no fake

 

I rather talk-tough = mean it. . . than to be confronted by someone who acts tough who has no idea whatsoever.

Pride

 

Be what you are. This is the first step toward becoming better than you are. August W. Hare

June 20th 2022

 

I hate the feeling when I get my intelligence insulted due in the event I am being tested or screened base on the where I center on that other person's radar. I really don't know why it just bothers me to no end. I intuitively pick up on the ideological signals taking place and yet someone is setting up to be the victim of their personal judgment toward you. I can sniff such assholery out from their foxhole from the moment it happens. But the best part is another thing altogether remained unscathed.

My question is one portraying that person on the first part being immoral to me on the second part per se.

Every bit of my journey throughout life has met the risk of being undermined. Everybody does.

My purpose as philosopher is to identify the stereotypes associated with those that fit the profile.

With this in mind I find it parable to place my head above the water and this helps manifest the dichotomies that form a razor thin margin to help continue on my path to relative unknowns.

- Marco

 I have never thought of my body. The body. Something that is seperated from the mind Whereas the human experience is not within my grasp. If nothing else is worth knowing. Conceptially, being my body vs being itself- the conscious self - is a higher state of knowing. To infer what is a speaker in my body using this (my) flesh and blood as a deposit. This awarenss is not separated as in mind vs body. But the reason we exist? I feel almost embarrassed to say it. That this reason we exist, is without realizing how lucky we are. The fact is we don't know. It is in knowing that we don't. That makes for what is beautifully made. That there are no rules to be found, why we are just a body, that formed from the womb. If it is not divine in nature. Then my thoughts on this are false. Falsely put it.  

○°○•●•●

That is all it can be. (Falsely put.) That our awareness is as ancient as the symbols we ignore in time. Which throughtout history, time is a sign that we ignore certain elements that make up what is made of just our bodies. Nothing else?

°•○●○•°•○

The negation of our minds. That is what puts me here. That is what fascinating it is to think, my body is my spiritual self in human form. That without the soul, the body is nothing. There is that is nothing. That there is nothing to hold up the spine. A soul. A.souless spineless life in skeletal form. Just bones.  

Think abour that. I do.  

°°•●○••  

I know I have been searching for a greater part of me. And i will never stop searching. Because to stop searching is to concede curiosities. The faculty of what is in my body. What holds me up is not the skeleton. It is the power of my self itself. The human body is the soul stored in flesh and blood wrapped with skin and traced in spiritual form. My body takes shape, the shape of an awareness we have no control over.  

°°•○○••°

- Marco

if not true

 “Since ancient times, the left side has stood for the side of the unconscious or the unknown; the right side, by contrast, has represented the side of consciousness or wakefulness. Through the late twentieth century, the movement of the Left limited themselves to a materialist understanding of reality -exemplified by Marxism- demanding social justice and economic equality but not the restoration of intuition and the recognition of the hidden, qualitative dimensions of being suppressed by the mental-rational consciousness, narrowly focused on the quantifiable.”

–Jean Gebser

June 19th 2024 the ethics of Marco Almeida

 There is something about me. When I feel wronged. I always almost always make myself to blame. It goes without thinking. I don’t know why this is. I do know where it has taken me. I know I am a sensitive person - it is not out of character for me if you know me better.  

But to further this self examination, it boggles my mind how much hurt I've been through. 

In return from such a realization, it comes from a place of repentance. That people who blame themselves before placing that same type of judgment onto others, are people of god. This means you look out for others, putting their needs before your own.

It's about feeling disappointed but on a human level, most won't understand.

What I can say of me is that it makes me a good person, not - not that it makes me better than others. It simply means that when you connect the dots, you know what good vs evil looks like. And consequently there are those who perversely take advantage of that in spite of you.

In conslusion, there are people in my history. Some I loved dearly that completely shattered my personal perception of myself, my well being, and only misunderstood me for what I can now say had nothing to do with me. It was about me blaming only myself.  

It can be lonely.

- Marco

°•●●○○••••

The paradoxical nature between God and man is the very fabric of philosophy. Therefore, theology is philosophy with a general assignment of those variables. The truth is not theological. Only the question of God is philosophical and unknowable. Which creates our own dialogue.

°●○°○°○°○°○°○°○

June 20th 2026

I don't know about that.  A pure metaphysical standpoint, from which all things derive thenselves as is, does not physically represent an apriori discerned representation of MY REALITY.

°○°○°●°●°

 So what your argument says, is interesting to me.

°●°○°○°●° 

My point being that my personal affirmations (i.e. thoughts) that I hold myself to.  Are they merely dogmas of some type.  How do you know I am acting on my metaphysical representation of my relationship to the physical experience. Which to your point: would make my own sensory experience - obsolete?  °•●•°°

If in which case you don't see my contradiction as constructive of your idea.  Then, please refrain from a thoughtless response to me.

Thanks for your insight, regardless.

- Marco

Specific to the eye 👁‍🗨

 

'Awareness' implies- 'Sensitivity'.
To be Sensitive to the environment, to all the things, most of the things that are happening in the world outside,
and also To be Sensitive, to be aware of what is happening, going on within oneself, within the skin, as it were.

That is,
to be aware not only to nature, to other human beings, to all the beauty of the world, and the political chaos, the Contradictions, the Hypocrisy, all that outwardly,
and also to be aware inwardly one's own problems, Conflicts, desires, misery, confusion and so on.

So, it is a movement of Sensitivity to the outer as well as to the inner.
.
To be sensitive, to be conscious of one's own violence, Double talk, say one thing and think something else.
.
So, we are asking:- if one is not sensitive, You can't be Sensitive, if you say, 'I don't like that', or, 'I do like that'.
This gives me more delight in looking, and that disgusts me.
Because, if one is not capable to observe without any movement of thought, which is like and dislike, condemning, accepting,
how can one observe the extraordinary complexity of one's own existence inwardly?

You understand my question?
.
I am saying, To be 'Aware' implies- To be 'Sensitive', to be conscious of the outer as well as the inner.
If one is not Sensitive to the outer, it becomes much more difficult to be Sensitive to the things that are happening inside the skin, as it were.

.
.

J. Krishnamurti
Saanen, Switzerland,
27 - July - 1977,
Public Discussion - 1

Where I'm not involved : sensation is feedback

 

Christ ⛬

 

edit: my point is. When we know we are all wrong about him, and at the same time that the man he was - knew we were (all wrong). Makes for the greatest hero who ever was. 

- Marco

wonderwall

 

This side of genius : contradictory elements of mind in real time

 "You're not rushing to become anything and you're not haunted by things that you did," he said. "You're haunted by how little of it really mattered in the way you thought it would."

resorting to the title of antihero

 

Marlon Brando, the actor most responsible for bringing Method realism to American movies, spent his later years deflating the mystique around his own profession. His argument was that acting is simply persuasion and concealment, things every person practices daily, and that the craft differs from everyday life only in degree.

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

June 17th 2026

Brando is right. He found it and then denied it. Played it down. Dumbed down his talent for the spotlight. It's all reverse psychology. Nobody fooled us better. The truth is, Brando was an enigma. One of a kind. To say he meant what he said on terms that made us revere him were only contradictory. A genius. I learned a great deal from him.

- Marco from WInnipeg 🍁

Nobodies scarecrow

Jeff Brademeyer

 The question that increasingly interests me is not whether the self exists, but what kind of reality a self would have to be for the phenomenon of selfhood to be possible.

A stone exists but does not know itself.

A wolf acts but may not become an object to itself.

A computer processes information but does not appear to appropriate its own existence.

Yet human beings seem capable of something unique: they not only experience reality but can turn back upon themselves and recognize themselves as the one having the experience.

I remember a childhood memory as my memory.

I judge a past decision as my decision.

I ask whether the person I have become is the person I wish to become.

This suggests that the self is neither a mere object nor merely a stream of experiences.

Rather, the self seems to be that reality which can become an object to itself without ceasing to be the subject experiencing it.

The distinguishing mark of selfhood therefore appears not to be agency alone, but reflexive participation in one’s own existence.

Viewed this way, the self seems less like a thing and more like a reality that becomes present to itself.

At least for me, this seems to account more adequately for the phenomena of memory, identity, responsibility, and continuity through time than either a purely objectified self or the denial of selfhood altogether. ====================

There is no actual evidence that accounts for the self. I support whatever theory emerges from that. The theory for reality is that there is no evidence for what is normal. Therefore, doesn't exist either. Norms are things that we associate with to behave a certain way. But we all still wear masks to live in a state that the roles we play match with what is communal. My point is I rather focus on what's important to me on a personal level. The answers I seek come from learning through what I experience. The mechanical failure on my part, the me that exists in real time, may have to fail in order to examine what that is. Trial and error? Trial and error supports the advancement of one's self. The better question then becomes: what is it about myself that is true in relation to the self. This is more of metacognition in action. The question of my or the I. My reaction should not be dependant on another persons point of view - ever. So, I live independently of a void into the submission of someone with the same name. How do I know? What if we are plagiarized copies of things we unconsciously absorb in real time. How do I know?

This is how you think about what the self is. That if there is no self - you are lost treating the image of self you think is there. Only it does not manifest over time. The more you move in space and time, the current of your experiences dissolve. My point here is - are you trying to hold something together in your sense of identity. How do you know? The direction you take now was not an different than it was. Tomorrow may be eclipsed by your wish to be someone else. The point is this: that we cannot undo how we got here. It's all relative. There is no escape. The more you realize this, the further off you seem to others. This takes an awareness far beyond measure. Measuring the self means being obsolete.

- Marco

edit: This is a meta narrative that fits with the description of this group. I know my stuff. What comes next if anyone cares to debunk me - better be ready. I am not a scarecrow.

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

Jeff Brademeyer

Marco, what I find most interesting in your response is the suggestion that what we call the self may simply be a temporary organization of experiences that continually dissolves and reforms over time.

My question is whether the very capacity to recognize those changes already points to something more enduring. Most of us seem to experience ourselves not merely as changing, but as the same “I” undergoing those changes. The child, the adolescent, and the adult may differ dramatically in beliefs, desires, memories, and self-conceptions, yet we still ordinarily say, “That was me.”

Whether that continuity is real or illusory is precisely the kind of question I’m trying to explore.

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

". . . what I find most interesting in your response is the suggestion that what we call the self may simply be a temporary organization of experiences that continually dissolves and reforms over time."

I find your interpretation thoughtful and impressive. Not only that it makes sense, it computes what I meant.

Where I gather you've still remained unsatisfied?

You continue with searching for an answer, (which is not a critique of you). Only because, I feel the same about truth and learning. That you develop curiosity as a rule. This curiosity is a sophisticated type. The type where "curiosity as a rule" is conceding that their never is an end to truth. The search (curiosity) is the intent behind what is why we do philosophy.

My last paragraph (above) is written in this idea. That as I said in my original response to you, that I tie together herein. Now, I would stick to your original question. That being the self. What is - the self.

My question in the original response I made, is something I referred naming 'normal' or what is 'normal' has no theory to it. That means we can not adhere to what normal is across a spectrum, because we'd be living in a black hole, something of a vacuum, where gravity is a force we understand? (Which physics still hasn't solved.) So my last point is impossible to presume because there is no evidence to equalize our objective either way. So, this gets to my next point. The point I make is this. That if to be normal is based on human understanding for what is rational, or standards in behavior (i.e. psychology) then to what end is the self plausible? My answer.

The answer is simple.

That because their is none. No theory to the self, then no theory to what is. What is normal does not exist in real time. Therefore, we have branched our ideas to intercept for science. Whereas we've created something of empirically gathered (e.g. knowledge) based on what we believe is reason and observation in controlled environments on the basis of language. Rewind: all empirical data must also be rationally tabulated. My point in all this is if we accept conventional methods for which we establish scientifically guided (first) principles. Then why do we not govern the self under the same ideas?

If this makes sense to us, I don't know why it wouldn't?

My conclusion:

If you and I agree on everything as you - yourself and as me - myself have done. Then to my point, what is normal must equate to an intent. If we are of the same intent, from which the self is governed. This follows, that the self if contained in a system of order. Then, this self we both agree is what we se each other in reality. Your question is true. That the self is no different than that the reality you think is me and that I see is yours. I am talking about our identities as we have discussed in response to each other within our discussion group. I think of this as a controlled environment. Which follows that the self if contained is in a system of 'order'. My conclusion follows that only in a system of order that the self is displaced, I am referring to character. And if our constant state of self is to remain neutral in some form that is recognized as the me, or the you, or the I. Then all the self is - is inconclusive to evidence. As in law, legality searches for the self. The self who acted in search of crime, or is it that they acted out of character (i.e. outside the self's 'normal' behavior = the identity that "other's" find immaterial in describing you.) How do you know? It's the scariest thought I can come up with in search of your answer.

- Marco

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

attention: Jeff Brademeyer

Note: as my dissertation above relates. . . does the self act knowing it moves into a higher state of conscious arousal as what is "normal" - or - does the self stay unconsciously stuck in a comfort zone and help maintain an identity of what I think of as homeostasis.

I'm being serious.

Passage of time in psychological order

 

what is the truth or is not the truth in all things

 

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